Present danger test
Every citizen of the US has a right to participate in a demonstration as long as it does not interfere with the rights of other citizens. The right to demonstrate is enshrined in the constitution under basic human rights and freedoms (Jeske & Fumerton, 2011). The demonstration has to occur since the government has failed to address the challenge of insecurity despite having promised to do so within thirty days. The neighborhood has become very unsafe, and property values are driven down. Every week, there is at least one reported incident of violent burglary. The need to find a permanent solution to this insecurity challenge necessitated the loud demonstration.
Every citizen of America has a right to security provision, which is a role of the government of the day. Members of this neighborhood pay taxes to the government to get social services such as security (Jeske & Fumerton, 2011). Therefore, the government has no excuse for its apparent failure to tame the runaway insecurity in the once peaceful neighborhood. Where should the law-abiding citizens of this great neighborhood turn to if the government cannot provide the answers they promised to deliver within thirty days?
Being an intriguing idea, security management should be focused on a mirrored reflection of what a society would like to visualize from a string of intertwining priorities. Addressing security challenges involve impersonal consciousness, stepwise process, and absolute necessity assumptions aimed at creating a sustainable, friendly, and acceptable irksome feeling (Jeske & Fumerton, 2011). The government has failed miserably here. On a scale of one to ten, the government’s scorecard is three, which is dismal. The neighborhood is afraid that the runaway insecurity might drive down their property value by almost 70% if nothing is done very soon. Many tenants have started moving out of a place they previously considered a safe haven. I am afraid we might even lose many breadwinners in the hands of the buglers.
The reactive process for this demonstration is what is referred to as social change. At the quantitative level, this continuous process embraces both the ecological dimension and internal operation engine as a measure of variance between the former and the later result when these occurrences fuse (Haverluk, 2007). Change advocacy is a necessity for actualizing ideas acceptable to society. Irrespective of the social and economic climate in which change agents operate, the questions to consider in change advocacy revolves around policy solutions, engagement, administration, and change argumentation. Thus, the demonstrators need policy-driven, and people owned a security management plan.
Restrictions and rights of others
In America society, citizens have adopted bureaucratic, ideological, legislative, and mass appeal to advocate for change. This demonstration was in line with the tenet of the American society and did not infringe the rights of the government representatives since they failed to honor their promise to provide the social amenity which is part of the basic human rights. The problem caused by the self-determination is usually difficult to break as it is cyclic. Therefore, a false consciousness may be formed that allows negative qualities of superstructure and base relationship to manifest (Haverluk, 2007). Thus, the attitude of demanding accountability, and belief on inclusiveness as an epoch greatly spurred the immediate need for a demonstration that would agitate for containment of insecurity in the neighborhood.
Haverluk, T. (2007). Geopolitics from the ground up: Geography and global politics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Jeske, D., & Fumerton, R. (2011). Readings in political philosophy: Theory and applications. London, UK: Oxford University Press.